( 





) 



E 423 
.P36 
Copy 1 



LA VERY IN THE TERRITORpS . 



iiP' 



SPEECH 

OP 



HON. LUCIUS B. PECK, OF VERMONT, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 23, 1850, 

In Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the President's Message trans- ^ 
mitting the Constitution of California. ™ 



Mr. PECK said: 

Mr. Chairman: We have before us the sprcial 
nesaage of the President, in which he recom- 
mends the ad mission of California as a State, when 
fhe shall present herself for admission. He also 
advises Congress to establish no tctritorial govern- 
rnentij over that portion of our acquisitions from 
Mexico which is not included within the limits of 
California. The fir.=<t recommendation has my ap- 
proval, and from the other I dissent. 

California now presents herself, with her con- 
stitution, and claims admission as a State. This 
claim is made under the Federal Constitution, 
which provides that Congress may admit new^ 
States, and is enforced by a reference to the pro- 
visions of the treaty with Mexico, the ninth arti- 
cle of which stipulates, that those Mexicans who 
may choose to remain in the ceded territory, 
" shall be incorporated into the Union of the Uni- 
' ted States, and be admitted, at the proper time, 
' (to be judged of by the Congress of the United 
' States,) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citi- 
' z'ens of the United States, according to the prin- 
' ciples of the Constitution , "&c. Ought her claim to 
be rejected ? Certainly not; considering the rights 
of her citizens under the Constitution and treaty, 
unless for some good and weighty reasons. Her 
constitution is republican, and no objection is taken 
to its provisions, unless it be to that portioTi *f it 
which defines her boundaries. Various objections 
have been started, the most prominent of which 
are, 1. That Congress have, by no act, authorized 
the people to form a State government; 2. That the 
people who have formed the constitution are ad- 
venturers from all parts of the world, of every 
hue and color, and located there for a mere tempo- 
rary purpose; 3. That the boundaries, as described 
in the constitution, are too extensive. 

No legislation on the part of Congress is required 
to confer upon the people of a territory the right to 
form a State government. It is conceded on all 
hands that Congresscannotcreate a State. Where, 
then, resides the power of forming a State govern- 
iTient? With the people, the source of all power 
in a free government. If this power rests with the 
people alone, what necessity of the previous assent 
of Con«;ress to the formation of a State govern- 
ment.' It cannot add to, or enlarge a power, which 
exists independent of all legislation on the part of 
Congress. From what souice is derived this doc- 
trine of the necessity of a previous assent on the 
Dart of Congress, now put forth .' Certainly not 
from the Constitution, for that is silent on the sub- 



ject. It has not even the authority of uniform 
precedent to support it, for a majority of the Statea 
have been admitted without any previous action of 
Congress. Congress never authorized Vermont, 
Kentucky, Tennessee, Maine, Arkansas, Michi- 
gan, Florida, Texas, or Iowa, to form State gov- 
ernments. The people of those States, in conven- 
tion, formed their constitutions, and, on applica- 
tion, were admitted into the Union. Why may 
not California be admitted with equal propriety.' 
Why single her out, and insist upon a rule which 
was not applied to those other States .' If this pre- 
vious assent is.not a constitutional requirement — 
and it is not even claimed that it is — may it not be 
waived .' May it not be dispensed with on the part 
of Congress? The gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Featherston] stated, in committee, a few 
days since, that there was no precedent justifying 
the admission of California; that those States 
which had been admitted without the previous ac- 
tion of Congress, were not formed from territory 
acquired from a foreign power. Florida wa« 
ceded to this Government by Spain, but it is true 
she was subjected to a territorial government for 
some years before her admission. But how does 
this alter the principle } 

It is also insisted that California should be re- 
fused admission on account of the character of her 
population. What evidence have we that all who 
took part in the formation of her constitution do 
not intend to remain domiciled there? It is quite 
possible that all do not. But what portion of them 
intend to leave? What proportion of- the votes 
should be excluded on this ground? There is the 
difficulty and injustice of rejecting the application. 
Similar objections were urged against the admis- 
sion of Louisiana, but they were not permitted to 
control the action of Congress. Neither have we 
any evidence that foreigners were permitted to vote. 
So far as we have any evidence, it appears that 
the right of voting was confined to the citizens of 
the United Slates, and to those who were entitled 
to that privilege under the treaty with Mexico. 

Similar objections might have been urged in the 
application of Tennessee and Illinois as they were 
in thecose of Louisiana. On the adoption of the Illi- 
nois constitution, all persons of the age of twenty- 
one years, who had resided six months in the terri- 
tory, were permitted to vote. Under this regulation, 
aliens voted. By the constitution of Michigan, 
foreigners were permitted to vote. In Tennessee, 
free negroes were admitted to the rights of freemen, 
and continued to vote at elections until the consti- 



/^> 



\ 



tution was changed in 1835. Was this objection 
ever reused before, except in the case of Louisiana, 
on the application of a State for admission into the 
Union? It is believed that no other instance can 
be found in the history of Congress, where this 
objection was started. Sir, who is to settle this 
right of the elective franchise? What have Con- 
gress to do with it ? It is a matter to be settled by 
the people of the territory. It is under their sole 
control. 

It is further urged, that the boundaries of the 
State, as described in the constitution, embrace too 
much territory. It is believed that Texas contains 
a greater number of square miles. If her western 
boundary, as claimed by Texas, be the true one, 
she is the largest State. 

But why not permit the people of the territory 
to settle this question as they nave done ? They 
have the right to form their own organic law, and 
Nvould it be just to deny them admission into the 
Union because some of us may entertain the 
opinion that her limits are too extensive? Michi- 
gan, Tennessee, and Iowa fixed their own limits, 
and Congress admitted them into the Union. Why 
not yield to California the same right? When 
you come to consider the topography of the 
country, the character of the soil, and the nature 
of the climate, this objection loses much of its 
force. There is good reason for believing that 
several of the States have more arable land, and 
are capable of sustaining a larger population, than 
California. The country is cut up by mountains 
and high ridges, and much of that portion of it 
that is capable of being tilled cannot be made pro- 
ductive for the want of means of irrigation. Who 
doubts that Pennsylvania can maintain and feed a 
much larger population than California? The 
main resources of the latter Slate will be found in 
grazing, in commerce, and in her minerals, while 
she will be dependent, to some extent, upon other 
nations for her breadstuffs. 

It has been said in the course of the debate, that 
the influence of the Executive was interposed to 
induce the formation of her constitution. Ad- 
mitting this to be true, are the people to be refused 
a State government, their rights forfeited, in con- 
sequence of the action of the President, when that 
action was neither sought nor desired by the people, 
so far as we have any evidence ? But this charge 
is denied by the friends of the Executive, and I 
have seen no evidence to satisfy my mind that the 
charge has any foundation in fact. 
M 'iSir, I am apprehsive that there is a provision in 
'this constitution which constitutes the real objec- 
tion, in the minds of southern gentlemen, to the 
admission of this State. I allude to that article 
which excludes slavery. This has not been put 
forward as an objection. By some it has been 
expressly disclaimed as such; yet one is con- 
strained to believe, that did the organic law admit 
the existence of slavery, we should not have found 
the opposition coming from the quarter it now 
does. Does any southern gentleman question the 
right of the people to decide for themselves whether 
they will tolerate or exclude slavery ? When the 
Missouri question was before Congress, Mr. 
Pinkney, who denied the power of Congress to 
control the constitution of a new Stale, held this 
language: 

■ "No rban can contradict me when I say, tljat, if you 
li*ve this power, you may squeen down" a nevi'-bcra sover- 



eign State to the sixe of a pigmy, and then taking it be- 
tween your linger and thumb, stick it into enme niche of 
the Union, and still continue, by way of mockery, to call 
it a State in the sense of the Constitution. You may waste 
its shadow, and then introduce it into a society of flesh and 
blood, an object of scorn and derision. You may sweat 
and reduce it to a thing of skin and bone, and then place 
the ominous skeleton beside the ruddy and healthful mem- 
bers of the Union." 

So long ago as 1820 this was the principle 
southern statesmen adopted and urged upon Con- 
gress. President Polk, in his message of Decem- 
ber, 1848, reiterates the same doctrine. He says: 

" Whether Congress shall legislate or not, the people of 
the acquired territories, wlien assembled in convention to 
form Btate constitutions, will possess the sole and exclusive 
power to determine for themselves whether slavery shall or 
shall not exist within their limits. Ef Congress shall abstain 
from interfering with the question, the people of those ter- 
ritories will be left free to adjust it as they may think proper 
wheu they apply for admission as States into the Union." 

Mr. Calhoun, in a speech delivered in the Sen- 
ate in February, 1849, recognizes the same princi- 
ple in the most explicit language: 

" I hold it to be a fundamental principle of our political 
system that the people have a right to establish what gov- 
ernment they may think proper for themselves ; that every 
State about to become a member of this Union has a right 
to form its own government as it pleases ; and that, in order 
to be admitted, there is but one qualification, and that is, 
that the government shall be republican. There is no ex- 
press provision to that effect, but it results from that im- 
portant section which guaranties to every State lb thie 
Union a republican form of government." 

State Democratic conventions held in Georgia 
in 1847 and 1848, passed resolutions embracmg 
the same doctrine. In January last, the Legisla- 
ture of Texas, among a series of resolutions, unan- 
imously adopted the following: 

'^Resolved, That it is a fundamental principle in o\ir po- 
litical creed, that a people in forming a constimtion have 
the unconditional right to form and adopt the government 
which they may think best calculated to secure their iib- 
eriy, prosperity, and happiness; and that in conformity 
thereto no other condition is imposed by the Federal Con- 
stitution on a State, in order to be admitted into this Union, 
except that its constitution shall be strictly republican ; and 
that the imposition of any other by Congress would not only 
be in violation of the Constitution, but in direct conflict 
with the principle on which our political system rests," 

Sir, there is no political question upon which 
southern statesmen, and the South generally, have 
better agreed, and to which they are more com- 
mitted, than upon the right now claimed by the 
people of California to determine for themselves 
their own organic law. Never was there a time 
either, when so pressing a necessity existed for the 
admission of a State as is now presented in the 
case of California. We have extended our rev- 
enue laws over the territory, thus compelling her 
citizens to contribute to the support of the General 
Government; but have neglected to provide any 
government for their protection. She is almost 
without the protection of law. The rapid increase 
of her population and commerce has hardly a par- 
allel in the history of this country. Foreigners 
are pouring into her valleys in numbers so great 
as to endanger the rights and safety of our citizens. 
Her valuable minerals, the property of the people 
of the Union, are dug from her soil and taken 
from the country by the foreign adventurer. While 
every principle of justice, and the best interests of 
the whole country imperiously demand her imme- 
diate admission into the Union, that admission is 
opposed on the ostensible ground of alleged irregu- 
larity and informality in the formation of her Con- 
stitution. Sir, it seems to me — and I say it with 



V all due respect to the opinions of others — that this 
is not the /orum nor this the occasion when such 

■ objections should be heard ; clear it is, in my judg- 
-ment, that they should not be entertained Clues- 

"-'tions of national importance, involving high po- 
litical considerations, should not be controlled by 

,> matters of mere form. 

Sir, the inhabitants of California, particularly 
that portion of them who were formerly Mexican 
citizens, have the strongest possible claim upon 
this Government for admission into the Union. 
The faith of the country is, to some extent, pledged 
to the measure. In the instructions given to Gen- 
eral Kearny by the Executive, under date of June 
3d, 1846, we find this language: 

" ShoBld you conquer and take possession or New Mexico 
and California, you may assure the people of tliose provin- 
ces, that it is the wish and design of the United States to 
provide for them a free government, with the least possible 
delay, similar to that which exists in our territories. They 
will be then called to exercise the rights of freemen in 
electitig their own representatives to the territorial legisla- 
ture." 

Acting under these instructions, General Kear- 
ny, in March, 1847, issued his proclamation to 
the inhabitants, in which he says: 

" It is the wish and intention of the United States, to pro- 
cure for California, as speedily as possible, a free govern- 
ment, like that of our territories, and they will very soon 
invite the inhabitants to exercise the rights of free citizens 
in the choice of their own representatives, who may enact 
such laws as they may deem best adapted to iheir own in- 
terest and well-being." 

In July, 1847, Commodore Sloat, when he 
landed at Monterey, held the same language in a 
proclamation which he issued. These assurances 
were confirmed by Commodore Stockton's proc- 
lamation as Governor of California, published in 
August, 1847. These province?, were conquered, 
and, by the treaty of peace, ced /i to this country. 
What effect these proclamatifiis had upon the 
conduct of the inhabitants, it is difiicultto deter- 
mine; but the assurances made by those acting 
under the authority of the Government have not 
been carried out. ISo government has been estab- 
lished. We ought not to lose sight of the obliga- 
tions imposed upon us by the acts of the author- 
ized agents of the Government, and by the terms 
of the treaty. By the ninth article of the treaty. 
Congress, it is true, is to determine the time when 
they shall be admitted into the Union. The matter 
is left to the discretion of Congress; but in order to 
carry out in good faith this stipulation, the discre- 
tion to be exercised should be a sound one, one 
not influenced by caprice, or controlled by formal 
objections. These Mexican citizens, in conjunction 
with American citizens who have emigrated from 
the difierent States of the Union, now claim to be 
admitted. Considering all the circumstances of the 
case — the population of the territory and its char- 
acter, the extent of her commerce, and the ne- 
cessity of some regularly organized government, 
can any one seriously doubt that it is the duty of 
Congress, in the proper exercise of its discretion, 
to admit her as a State ? Sir, it will <be recollected 
that the treaty with the French Republic, by which 
we acquired Louisiana, contained a stipulation 
very similar in its terms to the ninth article of the 
Mexican treaty. It will also be remembered, that 
when Louisiana applied for admission, the appli- 
cation met with serious opposition from northern 
statesmen, on constitutional grounds — they insist- 
iflg that Congress had no power, under the Con- 



stitution, to acquire foreign territory and admit it 
as a State. The question was much discussed, 
and Mr. Poindexter, the delegate from the then ter- 
ritory of Mississippi, after replying at great length 
to the various arguments urged against her admis- 
sion, and referring to the third article of the treaty, 
put an inquiry which is not inappropriate to the 
present case: " And are we here sittmg to delib- 
* erate whether we will perform the solemn en- 
' gagements which have been entered into by the 
' constituted authorities, and which are presented 
' to us in the imposing attitude of the supreme 
' law of the land.'" Sir, what satisfactory response 
could we make, on the present occasion, to a simi- 
lar inquiry.' None, in my judgment. France was 
then all powerful, and could enforce the due ob- 
servance of any treaty stipulation with a foreign 
power. This Mexico cannot do; but this fact does 
not lessen our obligations. 

Some gentlemen on this floor have expressd a 
determination to go for the admission of California, 
provided they can be assured that proper legisla- 
tion shall be adopted with regard to the residue of 
the acquired territory. That is to say, if Con- 
gress will establish territorial governments for 
that territory and not exclude slavery, they will 
yield their assent to her admission. Now, sir, 
let me inquire what connection have these ques- 
tions? Are they not entirely independent of each 
other? Shall the people of California be deprived 
of their rights — denied admission into the Union — 
because Congress may not pass such laws for 
another people as gentlemen think ought to be 
passed ? Is this any more or less than saying to 
an individual, sir, 1 will not deal justly with you 
unless A deals justly by B ? This is a novel 
principle to be applied to matters of legislation. 

Sir, I have already said that I believe the real 
objection to the admission of California is found 
in that provision of her constitution which ex- 
cludes slavery. This opinion is based, in part, 
upon declarations made on this floor, and upon 
the report made by a committee of the Legislature 
of Georgia, during the past winter, in which the 
admission of California, with her present constitu- 
tion and limits, is regarded as objectionable as the 
adoption of the Wilmot proviso; and either seems 
to be treated as a sufiicient reason for secession 
from the Union. When we consider that no con- 
stitutional question is involved in the act of admis- 
sion, and that the right of the people of a territory 
to form their own constitution, has been hereto- 
fore universally conceded by the South, the posi- 
tion now assumed must strike every one with 
surprise. On this point I desire to call the atten- 
tion of the committee to the debate in 1811, on 
the bill to permit Louisania to form a State govern- 
ment, and particularly to the speech of Mr. Poin- 
dexter, of Mississippi, in reply to Mr. 'iuincy, of 
Massachusetts. The latter gentleman was most 
violent in his opposition to the bill, and in the 
course of his speech, said: 

" it was his deliberate opinion that, if the bill passes, the 
bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved ; that the States 
which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and 
that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of 
some, to prepare definitely for a separation— amicably if they 
can, violently if they must." 

Mr. Poindexter thus rebuked him: 

" Mr. Speaiier, I enter with lively sensibility on that por- 
tion of the remarks made by the honorable gpntleman from 
Massachusetts, which menace iiisurreftion and dissnlntjon 



of the Union. Had these sentiments fallqin from the gentle- 
man in tlie aidor of debate, while the imagination was in- 
flamed with an unconquerable zeal lo prove the impolicy of 
the measure under f.-oiisideration, or had they been offered 
in the shape of possible results, I should have regarded them 
only with pity and contempt. Influenced by a desire to 
stamp on these expressions their merited disgrace, and to 
preserve dignity and decorum in our deliberations, I felt it 
my duty to call the gentleman lo order. * * * * lam 
still impressed with a conviction that these sacred walls — 
the sanctuary of the liberties of the American people— ought 
not to be polluted by direct invitations to rebellion against the 
I Government of which we are a constituent part. 
I " The notorious conspiracy of Aaron Burr had for its basis 
'the detestable project of dismembering the Union. * * * 
And yet that man did not dare go the lengths which the gen- 
tleman from Massachusetts has been permitted to go within 
these walls. Did Aaron Burr, in all the ramirications ofhis 
treasonable projects, ever declare to an assembly of citizens, 
' that the State:* were free from their moral obligations .' and 
that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of 
some, to prepare definitely for a separation — peaceably if 
they can, violently if they must." No, sir. Had such ex- 
pressions been established by the evidence on his trial, I 
hazard an opinion that it would have produced a very ditier- 
ent result. Perhaps, sir, instead of exile, he would have 
been consigned lo a gibbet; for it cannot be concealed that 
the language of the gentleman from Massachusetts, if ac- 
companied by an overt act, to carry the threat into execu- 
tion, would amount lo treason, according to its literal and 
technical definition in the Constitution and laws of the 
United States. The fate of Aaron Burr ought lo be a salu- 
tary warning against treasonable machinations — and if oth- 
ers having the same views do not share a similar fate, it will 
not be because they do not deserve it." 

Such, sir, was the strong and emphatic language 
of merited rebuke which fell from the patriotic 
lips of Mississippi's representative in 1811. Then 
a northern member menaced insurrection and dis- 
solution, if a southern State, in which .slavery was 
recognized, was admitted into the Union. Slavery, 
how.^ver, was not the ground upon which the op- 
position was based. The admission was resisted 
on the alleged want of constitutional power in j 
Congress to admit her. The legal right to admit 1 
California is not now questioned, but the objection ' 
to her admission is placed on other grounds fall- 
ing far short of the important objection taken to 
the admission of Louisiana. In the one case, the 
opposition rested upon high constitutional grounds; 
in the other, upon a question of mere expediency — 
upon alleged informalities. And yet, sir, language 
which in 1811 was regarded by the South as 
*' pollution" in this Hall, and as an " invitation 
to rebellion," is substantially the language of a 
portion of the South in 1850. Sir, a distinguished 
gentleman from the South, [iVIr. Brown, of Mis- 
sissippi,] during the present session, said upon 
this floor, " My own opinion is this, that we 

* should resist the introduction of California as a 
' State, and resist it successfully ; resist it by our votes 
' first, and lastly by other means. We can, at least, 
'■force an adjournment of Congress without her admis- 

* sion." Sir, I do not stop to comment on this lan- 
guage, or to inquire what is meant by "other 
means." Every one must draw his own conclu- 
sions. Among other things, it may be well to 
remember that the recommendation for the admis- 
sion of California, is not an aggression on the part 
of the North. It is a measure proposed by a 
southern President, the favorite candidate of the 
South, acting under the advice of a Cabinet com- 
posed of a majority of southern men. Sir, I do 
not go for this measure because it has the recom- 
mendation of the Executive; but I support it for 
the reason that, in my judgment, our obligations 
to the people of California, their interests and that 



of the whole Union, imperiously demand its 
adoption. 

I now proceed to a consideration of the recon:- 
mendation of the President, that no territorial gov- 
ernments be formed. I cannot bring my mind to 
adopt this recommendation. I must oppose it for 
the same reason that I approve the recommenda- 
tion for the admission of California. I have 
already referred to the proclamations of the officers 
of this Government to the people of California. 
They were also addressed lo the people of New 
Mexico. These proclamations contained the- 
strongest assurances that territorial governments 
should be established. The ninth article of the 
treaty stipulates, that until States are formed out of 
the territory and admitted into the Union, the 
people " shall be maintained and protected in the 
free enjoyment of their liberty and property." 
How can this be effectually done without creating 
territorial governments.'' The situation of these 
citizens, and our obligations to them, demand at 
our hands the establishment of some form of gov- 
ernment for theit protection and security. It is not 
sound policy to turn a deaf ear to their demands. 
But my objection to this recommendation does noi 
rest here. I do not believe that a postponemeni 
of the action of Congress on this subject is either 
wise or expedient in any point of view. Sir, I am 
not of that number, if there are any such, who 
have anything to gain by keeping open this slavery 
question, which is intimately connected with the 
territorial question. 1 desire to see it settled, and 
settled, too, in accordance with what I believe to 
be the wishes of three-fourths of the people of the 
Union, by excluding slavery from the territories. 
The best interests of the country, the quiet anil 
peace of the people, demand its adjustment at the 
earliest possible moment. The longer it remains- 
an open tjuestion, the more excited will become 
the public mind both North and South. Delay 
will only augment sectional prejudice and embitter 
public feeling. The sooner a controversy between 
individuals or between communities is settled, the 
better for all parties. All experience proves tliie 
to be true. Permit this to remain an open, ques- 
tion, and it becomes a controlling element in the 
next presidential election. That election will then 
assume a sectional character. The contest will be 
one of the bitterest and most exciting character, 
in which one part of the Union will be arrayed 
against the other. Sir, who desires to witness 
such a condition of things.' The last election, if 
not controlled, v.'as much influenced by this very 
element. At the South, the successful candidate 
was supported upon the ground that he was a 
southern man, and would support southern views 
and southern institutions; and by observing a 
studied silence upon the great question of the day, 
the North was induced to yield him their support, 
because they were told he was in favor of the or- 
dinance of 1787. This was denied a few days 
since by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. 
Chandler,] who insisted that General Taylor's 
support at the North, so far as related to the 
j slavery question, was put upon the gound that he 
I would not veto a bill prohibiting the extension of 
j slavery to our territories. This view of the sub- 
i ject has been since reiterated on tlie same side of 
j this Chamber. Now, sir, those of us who reside 
further north know very well that these gentlemen 
i are mistaken. In the Boston Atlas of June 9, 



1848, the leading Whig paper of New England, 
under the editorial head, we find this significant 
language: 

" Ijet them learn, [those Whigs who were opposed to 
General Taylor's election,] as they will leani, if they will 
not be deaf and b'ind to the truth — that General Taylor is a 
Whig in principle — is in favor of peace — opposed to all 
war — bclieiies slavery to be a curse to the country, and desires 
its extermination ; aruiii opposed to the farther extension of 
slave territory.''' 

This was the language held, and these the 
assurances given to the electors of New England. 
Different language, we ail have reason to know, 
was held in the South. Neglect to settle this 
territorial question, and no candidate will be sup- 
ported at the next election for President, whose 
opinion.s upon the slavery question are not known 
and understood. A public declaration of those 
opinions will be demanded in every quarter of the 
Union. The people will not submit to be placed 
in a position where one portion of the community 
must be deceived. But how shall this question be 
settled .' There is the difficulty, (it is not one 
with me,) — and for this reason, I suppose, we are 
advised by the Executive to pass no territorial 
bill. I will not charge the Administration with 
entertaining a desire to keep this question open 
for partisan purposes, as I do not know that the 
charge would be true. I am unwilling to believe 
that any public man, occupying an exalted station, 
would permit so unworthy a motive to control his 
action. Yet, sir, it is somewhat singular, that upon 
a question which has greatly agitated the public 
mind for the last two years, and which threatens, 
in the opinion of many, to disturb the peace and 
harmony of the Union, the President has not 
thought proper to indicate his views — to say 
whether he was for or against the extension of 
slavery — whether for or against the ordinance of 
1787. 

But what is ihe doctrine recommended by this 
Administration upon the subject of slavery as 
applicable to our territories? A policy repudiated 
by the last Congress — that of non-intervention, by 
non-action — a " masterly inactivity." It is to give 
the^ people of our territories no government — to 
insist upon their remaining in their unorganized 
condition, without any settled rules of law for their 
government and protection, until they shall form 
State governments — inhibiting or tolerating slavery 
as they shall determine — and then admit them into 
the Union as States. Sir, previous to the last 
Presidential election. General Cass adopted and 
put forth, in principle, the same platform. He 
insisted that this matter should be left to the sole 
determination of the people of the territories — that 
Congress had no control of the question. For 
this he was denounced by the Whig press of the 
North and West as being an ally of the South — 
th«t his doctrine, if adopted, would spread slavery 
over all our territories — that it was, in fact, the 
doctrine of the South. Now the same position is 
assumed by the Administration — but whether on 
the ground taken by General Cass, that Congress 
has not the constitutional right to legislate on the 
subject, or upon the ground that it is impolitic to 
legislate, we are not informed. What is the 
difference between the positions thus assumed, in 
their results? None at all. General Cass says we 
should not legislate upon the question of slavery, 
as we have no power to do it, but that it should 
be left to the people to regulate. The Administra- 



I 

tion say, esta,blish no territorial governments — 
leave it to the people to form their own constitu- 
tions, and then admit them as States, with or with- 
out slavery, as they may elect. Is there any dis- 
tinction to be made between nuu-interventlon and 
non-action ? None whatever. How can the Ad- 
ministration be approved for what was condemned 
in General Cass ? But it is now said by one who 
occupies a distinguished place in Whig councils, 
[Mr. Webster,] that the ordinance of 1787 should 
not be applied to our territories — that it is wholly, 
unnecessary — that the " physical geography " oft 
the country effectually excludes slavery. Sir, this': 
was not the opinion of the last Congress — of the 
northern wing of the Whig party in and out of Con- 
gress. Mr. Clayton's compromise bill, as it was 
termed was formed on the basis of non-intervention. 
It proposed to establish territorial governments over 
California and New Mexico, without affirming or 
prohibiting the existence of slavery, and leaving 
the right of taking slaves into those territories to 
be determined by the judiciary. This was de- 
nounced by the Whig press of the North, and 
opposed by northern VVhigs in Congress, on the 
ground of its non-intervention feature. Then we 
had Mr. Walker's amendment to theappropriation 
bill, which was opposed and defeated for the same 
reason. Sir, did time permit, I should like to read 
some extracts from Whig speeches, and from edi- 
torial articles in the Whig papers of the North, in 
which the non-intervention principle of those bills 
was condemned in the strongest language. Why, 
sir, the distinguished Senator from my own State, 
[Mr. Phelps,] who supported Mr. Clayton's bill 
in a speech of great power, and upon the very 
ground no w taken by Mr. Webster, was censured 
for his course by a very large majority of his own 
party in that State. In speaking of this measure, 
the Atlas, of July 26, 1848, says : 

"The best place to put such bills is or. the table. Chlo- 
roform them." 

The correspondent of this paper writes to the 
editors, under dale of July 29, 1848, in relation to 
this bill and the vote to lay it on the table, saying: 

"There is great exultation over the fact, that while every 
southern Democrat voted against the motion, tw^'nly-one 
northern Democrats voted wish them. Williams and Clark, 
of Maine, Birdsall, of New V'ork,and nineteen other ' north- 
ern men with southern principles,' thus virtually expressed 
a desire to entail slavery in four great territories, in com- 
mon with other friends of General Cass." 

This, it will be remembered, was previous to 
the presidential election. Now it is passed — our 
Whig friends are in power — and now they go for 
the very measure, in its results, which they con- 
demned in 1848. So much for their policy and 
consistency. 

Sir, I desire to say that I go for establishing ter- 
ritorial governments, with the ordinance of 1787 
ingrafted thereon. In doing this, I believe I anti 
carrying out the wishes of nine-tenths of those 
whom I have the honor to represent on this floor. 

I go for this measure, as I believe the interesi 
of the whole country calls for its adoption, and 
that Congress have the constitutional power to 
pass it; that its adoption neither degrades the 
South, nor compromits its honor. I go for it, as 
I doubt whether the "physical geography "of the 
country will exclude slavery. Slavery was tol- 
erated in these territories while under the domin- 
ion of Spain, and by the Mexican Government 
until 1824, when it wa"? abolished. I'he cliaracter 



6 



of New Mexico is not unlike that of California, 
and if the climate and the character of the soil of 
the latter will exclude slavery, ao it will in the 
former. Yet the convention that formed the con- 
stitution of California, by a unanimous vote, in- 
serted a prohibition of slavery, not choosing to 
rely upon " physical geography" to exclude it. 
There is, unquestionably, great mineral wealth in 
New Mexico, and who can doubt that slave labor 
will be found profitable in mining operations ? 
And wherever profitable, there it will go, if per- 

•mitted. 

^ But the power of Congress to inhibit the ex- 
tension of slavery to these territories, is denied; 
and the passage of any law of this character is to be 
regarded by the South as a sufficient cause for a 
seces.'sion from the Union. I do not propose to 
discuss the question of power. As much as is 
profitable has, perhaps, already been said upon 
this subject. But it would seem that the exercise 
of this power by Congress, through a long series 
of years, should remove all serious doubts. Not 
that the exercise of a power which it is clear does 
not exist, will legalize and justify a continued ex- 
ercise of that power, but when the question is one 
of doubt, the practice of the Government for a 
great number of years, without objection, should 
settle all controversy. Hardly a territorial gov- 
ernment has been formed in which the action of 
the National Legislature has not borne upon this 
subject. The Constitution provides that Congress 
shall not prohibit the importation of slaves into the 
States prior to the year 1808. Yet, by an act 
passed in 1798, Congress did prohibit the im- 
portation of slaves into the territory of Missis- 
sippi. In the act establishing a territorial gov- 
ernment for Louisiana, passed in 1804, is found 
this provision. • 

"And no .sslave or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be 
introduced into said territory, except by a citizen of the 
United Stales, removing into said territory for actual settle- 
ment, and being at the time of such removal the bona fide 
owner of such slave or slaves ; and every slave imported or 
brought into the said territory, contrary to the provisions of 
this act, shall thereupon be entitled to, and receive his or 
iier freedom." 

This ret was passed during the administration 
of Mr. Jefferson, and received his assent. Both 
of these acts, which were passed soon after the 
formation of the Federal Constitution, and while 
many of the members of the convention were in 
CongreK.3, or connected with the Government, as- 
sert the right to prohibit the importation of slaves 
( into the territories of the Union from abroad. The 
* act of 1804 goes further, and prohibits their intro- 
\ duction into Louisiana from any part of the United 
I States, except in certain and specified cases. Itper- 
1 mitted any citizen of the United States to take his 
i slaves into that territory, if he removed there for 
'ithe purpose of settlement, but in no other easel 
Iwas it permitted. It denied to the citizens of a ! 
slaveholding State the right to send or take their j 
slaves into that territory for sale, while the citizens 
)f the free States were permitted to send there for ; 
sale, every species of property recognized as such 
>y the laws of those States. This act thus dis- , 
^riminated in favor of the people of the free States, 
id yet it does not appear to have been objection- 
ble to the South. Now, the same discriminating 
Mnciplc of the proviso is regarded as peculiarly 
tensive to that portion of the Union. This act, 
It. asserts the very principle rlaimed by those 



who are in favor of the application of the ordi- 
nance of 1787 — the right of Congress to exclude 
slavery from our territories. If Congress in 1804 
had the constitutional right to limit, or in any 
way interfere with the introduction of slaves into 
our then territories, Congress then had, and now 
has, the right to prohibit their introduction in 
toto. This power has been since frequently ex- 
ercised. This is not denied; but it is now 
claimed that all this legislation was a mere usurp- 
ation of power. Suppose this to be true; can the 
South be seriously affected by any subsequent 
legislation of a similar character.' Most certainly 
not. An act which Congress has no constitutional 
power to pass has no validity; it is a dead letter, 
binds no one, affects the rights of no one. 

But suppose a law prohibiting slavery in the 
territories should be passed? Would this justify a 
secession from the Union.' — a breaking up of the 
Government ? If the views of southern gentle- 
men were rightly understood, some of them, at 
least, claim this right of secession under the Con- 
stitution — that they are not bound to await the 
decision of the Supreme Courtofthe United States, 
or if one is made adverse to their views, they may 
disregard it. Can it be possible that this is the hon- 
est opinion of sober, rightminded men — of States- 
men ! If this be a fair and correct exposition of the 
Constitution, it is indeed a " rope of sand." The 
framers of that instrument foresaw that cases 
might arise where individuals and States would 
question the power of Congress, and they wisely 
provided for this very difficulty by the creation of 
a national judiciary. The second section of the 
third article declares that " the judicial power 
shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising 
under this Conslitution, the laws of the United 
States," &c. By this provision the constitution- 
ality of a law of Congress is to be determined by 
the Supreme Court. That is the tribunal to which 
the validity of a legislative act is to be referred, 
by the express terms of the Constitution; and the 
decision must be obligatory upon all. If the judg- 
ment is not to conclude all parties — States as well 
as individuals — if any one is at liberty to disre- 
gard it and treat it as a nullity, the insertion of 
that article in the Constitution was a useless act. 
The people of the several Stales, when they 
adopted the Constitution, adopted each and all of 
its provisions. They agreed to live under it, to 
be bound by it, to adhere to it in peace and in 
war. It is, then, part of the bond that they would 
subniit to the judgment of the national judiciary 
on all constitutional questions. If this provision 
can be disregarded, each State is thus left to de- 
termine for itself the validity of every act of 
Congress; and whether she will submit to its au- 
thority. In short, she may nullify or yield her as- 
sent to the act according to her sovereign will and 
pleasure. This doctrine destroys the harmony and 
force of our Government. It treats the Constitu- 
tion as mere waste paper. The right to nullify an 
act of Congress, to disregard the judgment of 
the judiciary in a given case, is not conferred 
by the Constitution. It is a remedy wilhmU the 
Constitution, not contemplated nor justified by it. 
The principle is revolutionary in its character. 
The great name of Madison has been invoked in 
support of the doctrine. The Virginia resolutions 
of 1798-9 have been referred to for the same pur- 
pose. In August, 1830, Mr. Madison in a letter 



addressed to the editor of the North American iv., 
view, repudiates the doctrine, and denies that it 
is countenanced or justified by those resolutions. 
He says: 

" Beliw^i-ii tliese difterent constitutional governments — 
the oat vj^iiiaiiii!; in all the States, the others operating 
separately in euc.i, with tlie aggregate powers of govern- 
ment divided between them — it could not escape atten- 
tion that coniroverstes would arise concerning the Ijound- 
aries of jurisdiction, and that some provision ought to be 
made lor such occurrences. A political system that does 
not provide for a peaceable and authoritative termination of 
occurring controversies, would not be more than the shadow 
of a government — the object and end of a real govern- 
ment being the substitution of law and order for uncertain- 
ty, confusion, and violence. That to have left a final de- 
cision in such ca.ses to each of the States, then thirteen, 
and already twenty-four, could not fail tu make the Consti- 
tution and laws of the United States ditferent in difterent 
States was obvious; and not less obvious thai this diversity 
of independent decisions must altogether distract the Gov- 
ernment of the Union, and speedily put an end to the Union 
itself." 

Throughout the whole article Mr. Madison 
argues that the national judiciary was created for 
the very purpose of settling those controversies 
which might arise between the General Govern- 
ment and any of the States as to the constitutional 
rights and powers of either. If the existing pro- 
visions of the Constitution should not be found suf- 
ficient to protect the States against usurpations 
on the part of the General Government, the only 
remedy within the province of the Constitution, in 
his judgment, was ui an amendment of the Consti- 
tution. " And in the event of a failure of every 
' constitutional resort, and an accumulation of 
* usurpations and abuses, rendering passive obe- 
' dience and non-resistance a greater evil than re- 
' sistance and revolution, there can remain but 
' one resort, the last of all" — an appeal to the law 
of self-preservation. In such extremity, " but in 
' that only, would a single member of the Union 
' have a right, as an extra and ultra- constitutional 
' right, to make the appeal." 

With regard to the resolutions of 1798-9, he 
says: 

" In favor of tlie nullifying claim for the States individu- 
ally, it appears that the proceedings of the Lesislature of 
Virginia, in 1798 aad 1799, against the alien and sedition 
acts, are much dwelt upon." 

" It may often happen, as experience proves, that errone- 
ous constructions not anticipated, may not be sufficiently 
guarded against in the language used ; and it is due to the 
distinguished individuals, who have misconceived the in- 
tention of those proceedings, to suppose that the meaning 
of the Legislature, though well comprehended at the time, 
may not now be obvious to those unacquainted with the 
contemporary indications and impressions. 

" That the Legislature could not have intended to sanc- 
tion such a doctrine is to be inferred from the debates in the 
House of Delegates, and from the address of the two Houses 
to their constituents, on the subjectof the resolutions. The 
tenor of the debates, which were ably conducted, and are 
understood to have been revised for the press by most, if 
not all, of the speakers, discloses no reference whatever to 
.1 constitutional right in an individual Stale, to arrest by 
force the operation of a law of the United States." * « * 
" Nothing is said (in the address) that can be understood to 
look to means of maintaining the rights of the States, be- 
yond the regular ones, within the powers of the Constitu- 
tion." 

No man was more intimately connected with, 
OT better understood, the import and scope of these 
resolutions, than Mr. Madison. He denies that 
they favor the doctrine of nullification, and treats 
the secession of a State as revolutionary in its 
character. Those, then, who contemplate forcible 
opposition to an act of Congress excluding slavery 
from the territories, or counsel secession, advise 
measures unknown to the Constitution, and look to 



4. measure of this kind will 
piv, - jc . attempted to be carried out — 

the position \n which it will place its friends with 
the American people .ind in the judgment of the 
world and of posterity, every one must determine 
for himself. 

Our southern friends insist that the people of the 
free States have no interest in this slavery question 
— that with them, it is a mere matter of feeling — 
while with the South, it is a matter of interest. 
The North does not regard the subject in this light. 
The laboring man of the North will not emigrate 
to slave territory. He believes that labor by the 
side of the slave is degrading — that slavery weakens 
the power of every Government which tolerates 
it. Most all the emigrants from Europe locate in 
free States. Why do they not go south .' They 
are restrained by the same reasons that operate on 
the citizens of the free States. Have we, then, no 
interest in this question ? And are the people of 
the Nort't mistaKen in their opinions as to the effect 
of slavei y ? If so, the error of that opinion must be 
charged Ui>.in some of the most eminent statesmen 
of the South who, have frequently expressed the 
same opinion. They spoke from their personal 
knowledge as to the character and effect of slavery . 
On the proposition made in the Federal Convention 
to prohibit the iinportation of slaves. Colonel 
Mason, of Virginia, said : 

" The present question concerns not the importing Slates 
alone, but the whole Union. The evil of holding slaves 
was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been 
treated as they might have been by the enemy, they 
would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands." 
* * * " Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The 
poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They pre- 
vent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and 
strengthen a country." 

Similar opinions of the effects of slavery have 
been often expressed by southern statesmen — by 
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Clay. No 
stronger language condemnatory of slavery can be 
found, than in the debates of the Convention in 
Virginia, in 1832. During the war of the Revolu- 
tion, South Carolina, not having furnished her 
quota of troops, assigned as a reason for the omis- 
sion, that they were required to protect themselves 
from their slaves. I refer to this subject in no 
spirit of reproach or unkindness, but in justifica- 
tion of the opinion of the North. In view of all 
these opinions and fact.s, can it be matter of sur- 
prise to southern gentlemen that the people of the 
free States are opposed to the extension of slavery ? 
Can they be justly censured for their opinions as 
to its effect upon the prosperity of the country.' 
Can it be said with truth that they have no interest 
in this question .' They do, in fact, regard the ex- 
tension of slavery as opposed to the best interests 
and the welfare of the country, and hence their 
great objection to its further extension. 

Sir, the people of the free States have ever in- 
sisted, and still claim, that these great questions 
should be settled by a majority of the Representa- 
tives of the whole people; and if they involve 
any constitutional questions, that they should be 
determined by the judicial tribunal created for that 
express purpose. To the determination of ques- 
tions thus made, they bow in obedience, whether 
favorable or adverse to their views. The right of 
the majority to rule is a civil, not a natural right.' 
It is a right growing out of the organization of 
society, and recognized as such by the federal 



righ\ 



compact. This 
.majority by the people I c'- 

tion of the Constitution; it ly .. pr^ . v. .. which 

the Constitution is based:/ and whirTthe action of 
Congress is confined to '.Inatters over which Con- 
gress has jurisdiction, the minority have no just ' 
ground of complaint. If Congress exceeds its ] 
constitutional powers, a corrective is found in the j 
national Judiciary, or a repeal of the law may be ! 
effected by the action of the people. 

Let us so back now, and see what has been the j 
legislation of this country, and how it has affected i 
the interests of the North and the South, and how | 
the ditferent sections of the Union have acted un-j 
der it. In 1807 almost the entire capital of the j 
eastern States was employed in foreign and do- 
niestic commerce. At that period but little atten- 
tion had been given to manufacturing. All classes 
participated in the successful prosecution of the 
business operations of the country. In the midst 
of this prosperity, and hardly " with a note of 
■warning," there cnme a blight on all their hopes 
in the form of the embargo. This act prostrated 
lie whole business of the country, and beggared 
iiou:^ands. Ships rotted before the eyes of their 
owners, and men were forced to sit still and see 
heir property malting away like snow under a 
vernal sun. For this there was no remedy. It 
was the effect of an act of Congress, passed for 
wise purposes — for the benefit of the whole coun- 
try — and passed, too, by an almost unanimous 
vote of the southern delegation in Congress. Did 
the eastern States threaten a dissolution of the 
Union ? Some individuals did, which, subsequent- 
ly, they had cause to regret; but a great majority 
of the people thought of no such remedy, talked 
of no such remedy, though the act was more op- 
pressive in its operation than any other law ever 
passed by Congre-ss. The Legislatures of Mas- 
sachusetts and Connecticut declared by resolu- 
■jons that the act was unconstitutional. Petitions 
were presented to Congress representing the suf- 
fering which the act occasioned, and asking for 
its repeal. What was the reply to those peti- 
tions ? A supplemental act, passed in 1809, more 
stringent and oppressive than the first. The onl}^ 
remedy left, under the Constitution, was resorted 
to. The power of Congre6.s to impose the re- 
strictions was brought before the Judiciary, and 



.ic decision of the Supreme Court of the Uni- 
ted States, sustaining the acts, there was an end 
of the matter. On the final repeal of the non-in- 
tercourse laws, the capital of the East was again 
ernbarked in commerce. In 1816 a tariff, pro- 
tective in its character, and supported by the late 
distinguished statesman of South Carolina, and 
by the South generally, was passed. This law 
operated to check, to some extent, importations, 
and rendered capital employed in commerce less 
productive. The North, entertaining the belief 
that the Government would adhere to the policy 
of the act of 1816, turned their attention to, 
and embarked in the hazardous experiment of 
manufacturing. This became a lucrative business, 
when controlled by prudence and skill. It was 
but a few years before southern gentlemen began 
to denounce the protective policy, though it origin- 
ated with them, and the opposition to it became 
so ardent that at one time it threatened to lead to 
I a civil war. Southern views and feelings, how- 
! ever, were at length yielded to. The tariff acts 
I were modified, and the South relieved from a sys- 
j tern which they regarded as oppressive. This is 
I not a fitting occasion to enter into a consideration 
I of the propriety and expediency of this change in 
i our tariff system. I do not desire to exprefss any 
opinion upon that subject at this time. Reference 
] has been made to the subject for the purpose of 
showing that the legislation of Congress has been 
I in accordance with, rather than adverse to, the 
views of the South. Instead of there being any 
just grounds of complaint on the part of our 
southern friends, that the action of Congress and 
of the Representatives from the free States, has 
been in opposition to their rights and feelings, the 
whole history of the Government shows that the 
North have invariably yielded to the demands of 
the South. These concessions have been made 
from a spirit of conciliation, of forbearance — from 
a desire to live in peace and harmony with our 
southern brethren — thus furnishing the strongest 
possible evidence of attachment to the Constitu- 
tion, to the Union. Will our southern friends 
insist that we must yield to their views on all 
occasions, or they will separate from us .' They 
can hardly expect we shall do so on every occa- 
sion, and for one, I am not disposed to on the 
present. 



Primed at the Coni'ret-sional Glotic Office, 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



011 898 103 • 



/ 



iiMiiiiiiiiinniiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 
011898 103 i 



>^> 



